03-12-2018, 01:05 PM
(03-11-2018, 02:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Way to try and avoid the point.
I am not ripping the people who asked for this.
I am ripping the people who guaranteed this would never happen. You know, the ones who call themselves "realists".
(03-12-2018, 12:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thread title Jones decision by 3-14
Post #23 Pat5775
"We know the hard-on Mike Brown has for Pacman.
I'd bet anything Pacman is back next year "
Post #31 BrownAssClown
"Mike Brown pays for loyalty. I think he keeps 'PacMan" and may give him an extension. "
Post #33 Bengalsturtup926
"there is no way they let him go,that's marvins son he never had."
Post#44 Bengaldude
"Mike Brown won't let him go. "
Post #45 (agreeing with post #44) McC
"He somehow wormed his way into Mike's heart and we all know what a safe, warm place that is."
Wow, this explains a lot. How can you read these posts and come up with "I am ripping the people who guaranteed this would never happen"?
- Pat saying Mike has a "hard-on" for Pacman implies that Mike would keep Pacman because he likes him, not because he never ever gets rid of anyone, ever.
- BrownAssClown seems to be making a prediction based on prior evidence, but again, no guarantee of anything. He says "I think" even in reference to Pacman.
- Bengalsturntup isn't even mentioning Mike Brown or the FO...he clearly thought Marvin would be behind keeping him.
- Bengalsdude is referring to Pacman. Not any other players. No guarantee that a cut/restructure would never happen.
- McC is right. Mike has proven to be very loyal and he's kept poor players and coaches a bit too long at times. I think you'd admit this. Still no guarantee of anything, especially not about all players or the future.
None of these guys guaranteed we'd never cut/restructure anyone.
1. They're all talking specifically about Pacman
2. They all have various reasons for thinking we'd keep Pacman, and only BrownAssClown seems to imply that it's a systemic thing. The rest seem to think Mike or Marvin had love for Pacman.
3. There are no guarantees about the future.
Edit: I just realized that when you said "this" that maybe you were talking specifically about Pacman, maybe? I was thinking "this" meant cutting/restructuring in general. If this is the case, I apologize. It seems the more important point would be cutting/restructuring though, not Pacman specifically. Pacman was just a small part of the overall point, which was Mike Brown does not cut/restructure enough. He finally did for the first time in 10 years (IIRC).
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
